Whether a city ordinance (§ 842.06(c)) creates a private cause of action allowing a tenant to demand return of rent paid to a landlord when the landlord lacked a valid rental permit; Principle that absent an express indication to the contrary, an ordinance imposing a public duty on a property owner does not give rise to a private cause of action; Levendoski v. Geisenhaver; Claire-Ann Co. v. Christenson & Christenson, Inc.; Ballman v. Borges

Holding that Battle Creek Code of Ordinances § 842.06(c) did not provide the plaintiff-former tenant a private cause of action to enforce rental ordinances against defendant-landlord, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. The issue was whether § 842.06(c) creates a private cause of action allowing a tenant “to demand the return of rent that was paid to a landlord during a period in which the landlord did not have a valid rental permit.” Plaintiff claimed that he had “a private cause of action for the recoupment of rent because § 842.06(c) precludes an owner from accepting, retaining or recovering rent in the absence of a current, valid, rental permit. However, this section gives no express indication that a private cause of action exists for a tenant. Indeed, the word ‘tenant’ does not appear at all in § 842.06(c). Instead, the provision only provides for a limitation on the rights and conduct of an ‘owner or lessor.’” In light of this, under Ballman, “‘doubt is immediately cast on plaintiff's contention that the ordinance creates a cause of action in [his] favor.”’ Further, any claim that a private cause of action exists or should be inferred was “undercut by consideration of the ordinance as a whole and in context.” The permit requirements imposed “a public duty on landlords, not an obligation owed by a landlord to a tenant.” The owner’s or lessor’s obligation to obtain a rental permit “provides a public benefit that facilitates the inspection and policing of rental properties, not only for the welfare of occupants of the properties, but also to confirm that the properties are not a nuisance, § 842.08(c)(2), and to ensure that there are no conditions on the properties posing a hazard to” the general public. Because the requirement “is a public duty, it does not give rise to a private cause of action for a tenant.” Also, the “permit requirement is not a common law obligation; and, read as a whole, Chapter 842 provides for the administration and enforcement of this obligation by the City, meaning that a private cause of action cannot be inferred.” Further, given that “a tenant is subject to action by the City for the enforcement of Chapter 842,” the court found “unpersuasive plaintiff’s assertion that—without any express indication—it should be assumed that a tenant has a private cause of action under § 842.06(c).” Absent an express indication that a tenant has a private cause of action against a landlord, the court would not infer one.